Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further by naming concrete consequences: the deletion cannot be undone, the client's shared link stops working, and an invoice previously generated from the estimate survives. Those downstream effects are exactly what an agent needs before firing a destructive call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with zero filler, and the permanence warning is front-loaded before the secondary side effects. Every sentence carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers irreversibility and residual side effects well. It stops short of stating behavior on a nonexistent or already-deleted estimate, which would be the last useful detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented in the schema ('From list_estimates'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier format or how to obtain it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an estimate') and immediately scopes it as permanent ('for good'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_invoice, update_estimate, and convert_estimate_to_invoice without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for removing an estimate, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., converting or updating instead of deleting) or any prerequisite/confirmation step before calling a destructive tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.